The exact app-root provider nesting these components require, in the order that works. Getting this wrong fails at runtime, not at compile time. Optionally pass the components you are using to see which providers they each need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| components | No | optional slugs in use |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it usefully discloses that incorrect provider order causes runtime failures, not compile-time failures. It also implies the tool is a read-only lookup, though it does not describe output format or side effects in detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences deliver the core result, a critical failure warning, and optional parameter guidance with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke it correctly. It could be more explicit about the shape of the returned provider tree, but the core invocation context is covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the optional 'components' parameter at 100% coverage, and the description adds meaning by explaining why to pass components: to see which providers each component needs. This enriches the schema without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource—the app-root provider nesting—and emphasizes the correct order, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_rules or find_component. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a concrete understanding of what the tool returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context by explaining that components can optionally be passed to discover which providers each component needs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the tool's unique purpose makes the usage guidance reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.